Slashdot Mirror
Feds to Require Digital Receivers In All New TVs?
jonerik writes "According to this article in USA Today, the FCC is expected next week to require all new TV sets to include digital receivers by 2006. TV manufacturers are balking at the requirement, which they say would increase the price of new TVs by about $200. The National Association of Broadcasters counters that their study shows that the price increase would be half that, and would decrease to about $15 by 2006. The government, eager to sell off the TV broadcast spectrum to wireless carriers, is between a rock and a hard place, with sales of HDTVs slower than expected, broadcasters and cable systems not exactly jumping at the bit to take on the cost of reconfiguring for digital broadcasts, and a public that seems pretty satisfied with traditional analog TVs."
I'm still hoping that the FCC drops the requirements that broadcast channels be analog so that we can actually start seeing a push for all digital channels. The channels I have that come in digital are about 2x as clear and the sound is a lot better as well.
.. this is the only way that we will ever get digital TV piped into our homes. The manufacterors dont want to pay for the cost of digital recievers, the broadcasters dont want to pay to upgrade, and the consumers dont want to pay extra. Of course, all three parties do want digital and HD. I guess this is where the government steps in...
The problem is not the quality of the picture, it's the quality of the programming. That's why no one cares.
And on slow ass AOL
So if I have an HDTV, what do I have to have to get HDTV signals? Digital cable, directTV, regular cable, rabbit ears? Also, I thought I read a seperate HDTV decode was necessary - is that true? And, what about DVDs or VCRs? Are they HDTV compatible? And is there any benefit to watching a non HDTV signal on an HDTV? I know what the saleman will tell me, but I'm kinda confused about the whole situation...
Since most cable systems send their digital tiers in QAM, shouldn't the manufacturers be concentrating on that, considering on how few people receive their TV off the air?
They'd like this. Digital is part of DRM, and DRM means no more videotaping a 10 year old movie on TV, so if you want to see it, it's another buck in Jack Valenti's pocket.
Are they going to put people in jail for making TV's without digital recievers?
What about black and white TV's? What's the point of putting one in there?
How about the TV Watch, is it going to have this huge digital reciever attached to it?
sa daskljdsa
d sad
sadsa
das
dsa
d sa
d asd
asdas
d
Just imagine the hullabaloo to be had here when the Feds require all TVs to ship with WinCE and/or MSN ...
So if I don't buy into the "everything is disposable" routine and am still using a ten-year old tv in 2006, suddenly I will be treated only to static and a few pirate tv channels being broadcast from teenagers' backyards(until the FCC shuts them down of course).
What are the TV manufacturers complaining about, suddenly they can force everyone who has been holding out to buy a new tv. BIG PROFITS.
lysergically yours
jumping at the bit
Did you mean chomping at the bit or jumping at the chance?
Whatever you meant, don't count your chickens before they cross the road.
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
I'm sorry, but what the f*** does this have to do with the government?! Isn't it their job to manage the country, not dictate the direction of consumer electronics (although Sntr Disney and his puppeteers would indicate otherwise)...
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
US digital TV receivers are required to use the frankly stupid ATSC format, while the rest ofthe world gets to use the rather sensible OFDM scheme.
So people in the US get a piece of crap (worse spectrum usage, no doppler tolerance -> no mobile apps).
Why whould people buy it?
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
is to sell "monitors" that dont come with *any* tuners. It would actually be nice because then you plug in any device (VCR, Satellite, cable box, etc) and use the tuner provided in that. There is no need to have a tuner in TVs nowadays...
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Yep it works.
Each and every time, in almost every industry, when a change like this is proposed the industry screams, "That will add $$$$$$ to the price and make it impossible for us to make our money!" Yet every time the finally are forced to do it the price increases never appear and their profit margins just keep right on going up. When, oh when, are these industry people going to realize that moving forward is a good thing? They metion slow adoption of the technologies such as HDTV. Well, maybe if they would actually make the blasted TV's, in mass, to start bringing the costs down more of us would be buying them. I know that is what I am waiting on. Here in my market, all the major networks are HD available, but I simply will not shell out the outrageous $$$ that the TV makers say I need to. Oh well, someday I will be in charge and I can be .... oh screw it, I'll be just as clueless as todays industry leaders.
Knightfall
I support HDTV (in concept, I don't own a HDTV-happy tv). I believe the FCC can require broadcasters to use the HDTV spectrum (since waves are a limited quantity and under their control). But I don't believe they should have the right to mandate new TVs have a digital receiver. We're not talking about car emissions (which affect everyone) or food labelling (which is a factual listing). We're talking about a mandate on entertainment! They don't have the authority.
I want to watch media lies in super high resolution!
I think it's chomping at the bit
oooohhh now I've done it, I'm going to get modded down for that one!
mod away pudknockers
If you think this is a good thing, which some of you may- its the same thing as requiring DRM to ship with new TV's, VCR's, PVR's, computers, etc.
If Pace and Grudig in the UK can create set-top digital receivers for £99 ($150) and still make a profit then a TV set manufacturer can re work a future design to include the technology for a lot less than $200. I'd imagine that the true cost will be closer to $80.
Matt Thompson - Actuality - Insert product here.
The National association of broadcasters has developed this new product, HDTV. However, due to the massive restrictions that they have imposed upon our use of it, the continual changes that they keep making to the standard, and the high prices that they want for the hardware, noone buys it. So now, they go the federal government to make them mandate it. And to send manufactuers (who produce what the public wants) to prison (or more likely huge fines).
YOU WILL BUY THIS UNNECESSARY LUXURY ITEM!!
This is great, that means that any psudo-useless luxury item that I produce could be a success so long as I can convince the government to require it.
Oh, wait, I have to be rich first so I can bribe them... Oh well...
Irvu.
I'm not sure how everyone is setup, but I do know there are a significant number of television viewers who receive their television over an antenna. What happens to them in 2006? Either no TV or pay the 40 bucks a month for digital cable?
I'd say price is the main hang-up for me... I'd love a digital tv, and a few of the stations in my area do broadcast a digital signal. I just can't afford a digital tv. If they had an add-on box with a digital tuner that I could, say, plug into the component video jacks on my tv, I could handle that, but aren't HDTVs the ones that are letterbox size, or do they make them in regular sizes too?
I guess I'll have to go wander around Best Buy and do a little "research"
There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
So, they want TV makers to include the HDTV receiver box inside the TV. By 2006 they'll be very cheap anyway.
Even so... You can get one cheap. My cable company (Time Warner) does HDTV via Digital Cable. They gave me a box that does HDTV so I have a "digital receiver" and it didn't cost me any more than I was already paying. Same goes for DSS. You can get HDTV DSS receiver now, and soon you'll get them for "free' after signup.
Also, the boxes MUST be priced artificially high. As soon as they get put in to every TV they'll be extremely cheap. Look at DVD players..they are as low as $69 now.
If they're taking the broadcast stations's spectrum, and forcing manufacturers to build digital receivers into TV sets, why not give some money up front to broadcasters to cover some of their costs - since the FCC will be getting ten-fold of that money back when they auction off the spectrum theyy're taking. And, provide rebates on TV's that have digital receivers in them when sold in markets that have digital broadcasters. I mean, we're already so far in the hole, what's a few more billion, right?
I am one of those content with the current
analog television. There seem to be few uses
of technology these days that can remain simple
and get the job done like current television. I think it is actually
a consspiracy on the part of manufacturers and
other interests for this push to digital television, and not be be driven by anything other than economic greed. (Same is true for me in this push to DVD-only for home movie sales.)
I miss Al and Monkey. In the UK converting a TV costs less than $200 according to the BBC.
Industry always balks at government mandates, the later conforms to the regulation. For example, look at the requirement that all TVs have closed caption capability. First the industry complained that it would increase costs dramatically. Once the manufacturers stopped complaining, they integrated everything needed to meet the requirement onto a single chip that costs are less than $1 per set. Now the same will be done with digital receivers.
"I'm The Bounty Bear. I will find him anywhere. I'm searching."
Ok, how long ago did the digital TV specs get finalized? How much bandwidth do they take up? How much more could we squeeze into that spectrum if they re-did it taking into account those fabulous new mpeg4 codecs that allow DVD quality data streams for only 150-200 KB/s.
In related news, you will also now be required to purchase a TiVo with each new television.
When did we dispense with the whole free markey thing? Isn't demand supposed to have something to do with this? This from the government that won't require airbags in cars.
Imagine, though, how clear they'll all look on the new, digital C-Span. That'll be something.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
...not exactly jumping at the bit...
Please, if you're going to use an idiomatic expression, at least get it right. "Jumping at the bit" means nothing at all. "Chomping at the bit" is a reference to a horse that wants to run.
How can the public be satisfied when they can't see the difference? Normal people cannot afford HDTVs. There are scant few HD broadcasts. Subscribing to digital TV offers a clearer picture but most people don't really notice.
Content, content, and more content. Offer some content in digital TV. Who needs another specialty channel? Offer people the shows they watch everyday in digital (widescreen and HD). Offer smaller, less expensive HDTVs. Only then can the public truely compare.
UNIX/Linux Consulting
...The FCC Should look more closely at the series of foul-ups that have hit the UK's Digital Terestrial Television Service in recent months - with the collapse of ITV Digital, and the subsequent relicencing of the system to the BBC, view confidence in the system has slumped - and there were only 1.2 Million viewers of DTT at it's peak anyway!
Serious thought needs to be put into the transmission systems employed, signal quality, and most importantly, programme content - poor content will doom any attempts at Forced DTT takeup to complete failure - pushing more and more people into Cable or Satelite based systems... Sure, the US and UK markets are very different, but should the FCC not at least try and learn from other countries' mistakes?
Disclaimer: I meant what I thought, not what I wrote! What? You can't read my Mind? Oh dear!
Reminds me of SPY HARD or some Leslie Nielson movie where the italian gangster parody always messes up the colloquialisms.
FWIW:
"Jumping the gun" is a phrase and "chomping at the bit" is a phrase, and together, they mean absolutely nothing. Exciting, huh?
I know it's flamebait to poke fun at the editors' foolishness, but this time, I couldn't resist. Mod me to -1 Troll--I can take it.
When an HDTV costs a couple grand and your average TV at Wal-Mart is a couple hundred.. I can see why HDTV has had trouble taking off... Too much $$$ for too little improvement.
So now the government is going to mandate digital receivers..
Increases the price of the TV.
Allows wireless carriers to give you more services and more $$$ to use them.
Easier to implement DRM.. adding more $$$ to your monthly bills...
Seems to me this goverment mandate spells more $$$ spent by the average citizen all round... but hey.. that's what we have government for right? To make our lives better?
Feds, get the hell out of my living room!
Hey, I like the idea of digital TV. I bought a close-captioning television before they were required, too. But mandating it? When airbags aren't required in cars??
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
People will watch almost any piece of crap. Trying to get people to shell out big bucks for a new TV so they can pay more for digital programing is the hard part. As long as people can sit on their asses and watch analog they will.
The whole HDTV push is starting to look like Vietnam to me. HDTV failed. It's time to put up the white flag.
What about my TV Tuner that is currently in my computer, are they going to require me to get a new one that comes with a box the size of my already large case just to watch
To sum it up, there's an artificial "bandwidth shortage" combined with a desire by electronics manufacturers to sell more expensive stuff. Get those groups lobbying the FCC and the result seems pretty obvious to me.
FCC to require all new CD players to include Windows MediaPlayer decoding capability.
Department of Transportation to require all new cars to include Bose speakers.
Department of Agriculture to require all prepared foods to include truffles and caviar.
I can't imagine the level of bribery and corruption that could force the price of a $40 television (check the low-end models at your appliance store) to $240.
Maybe this will make Analog TV's cheap and obsolete so I can get a big one to play video games and movies on...
My Stuff: pspChess and foobar2000 plugins
that's just not fair
T
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
The way this transistion should be done, is by incentives. The government should give companies that strive to create all Digital TV's tax breaks, etc. No require them to do it. Lat time I checked we were living in a free country, but maybe after planes hit the towers that changed.
Um, _I_ have no interest in DTV and never have. Nor do I have ANY interest in paying $200 more for a TV to receive it. Modern broadcast TV is complete crap. Current broadcasting quality is more than it needs. The FCC can take DTV and shove it where the sun doesn't shine. Hopefully this press in USA Today will put an end to this enforce-migration bullshit.
First the mandatory (and useless) V-Chip, then the "Gore Tax" on telecommunications devices to provide internet access to schools whether or not they need it, then a ruling that internet by cablemodem is not considered "communication" so the government can snoop without a search warrant, now the forced obsolescence of analog television. Does anyone with more than two brain cells believe that these FCC bureaucrats are making decisions in the public interest?
What could be next, a mandate that all communications devices use sawtooth waveforms?
They're forcing us to go digital, too. Your second-hand American set bought at a low-low price will be useless within a decade as the analog broadcasts will stop.
Ok, I should be forced to pay more for a TV that will only work optimally if I pay some ridiculous surcharge to a local cable monopoly, just so I can get 5000 channels of mindless, boring crap filled with 30% commercials, in mind-boggling color quality and detail. Not compelling. TV sucks now. Making it bigger, better, and more colorful won't fix that.
The Australian government has already declared by 2008 all TV transmissions will be exclusively digital. Digital signal is available now, and although the picture quality is very good (not quite DVD quality, but better than any video or free-to-air signal outside the studio) - it seems nobody wants it.
TVs with digital decoders built in are just coming on the market, as are HDTVs... for the rest of us there is a $600 odd decoder to buy to make our perfectly working analogue TV work with digital.
The government here doesn't even seem interested in making spectrum available for use in other purposes as the new digital TV channels are largely in between the existing analogue channels ! (except for channel 0,1,2 which suffer interference due to their frequency)
Continous arguments by the govt and media companies haven't yet settled on arrangements for multi-channeling, or data-over-TV or any of the other cool digital TV features. Some media companies want some features, other want different ones. Insert much political nonsense... lather, rince, repeat.
At the moment, it's just 'normal' TV that you receive through a digtal black box.
After 2008 there is supposed to be no more analogue signal. No more spare TV in the bedroom. All need a digital decoder to function as they did before.
Oh, did I mention that we use a digital format that is almost completely incompatible with every other worldwide format?
Digital TV? Looks nice, government, but tell me why I need it and not why you want it!
Don't jump in to digital TV too quickly, guys, it resulting mess is not worth it...
If you're going to make a pun, at least get it right. "Poly" meaning "many" is Greek, not Latin.
Subject says it all.
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
I think the FCC is more concerned with freeing up the analog spectrum. There's a ton of cash and political hoopla around who gets the rights to what frequencies. Unless they do something now, there's to much of a chance that 85% of Americans won't be able to get digital signals by '06.
Hmmm. $200 extra to watch 300 channels of nothing in 'digital'. That'll make watching friends just that much better!!!! You think this is expensive? Consider that the TV in your living room is a mercury filled bio hazard. You cant just through it away, it must be disposed of properly. Handling that scenerio is going to cost someone (probably tax payers) money. I don't think most americans are going to throw away their existing sets to experience digital television. After all guys, it's just TV. Like how much flasher do you want FOXNEWS to get :-)? Even the conversion boxes are going to cost something like $700. Why bother? There's not much compelling content on television (like the internet) to justify the cost. Call me practical :-).
Peter
www.alphalinux.org
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong." -- Thomas Sowell
You see there is this part of the government called the Federal Communications Commission. It is their job to make sure that all of those nifty wireless devices; like Radios, Walkie-talkies, Cell Phones, Wi-Fi Internet Access points, Cordless Phones, Television Signals, Very Low Frequency Transmissions, Satellite Signals and just about every other way to communicate wirelessly are able to do their thing without interfering with one another.
No matter what they do, they are simply unable to create new frequencies. There are only so many frequencies available. So, they have to limit and control those frequencies, otherwise the next time you turn on your cell phone, you might end up getting nothing but an old "I Love Lucy" show, or end up having to help a Jetliner land at a landing strip 60 miles from your home.
Without the government regulating and controlling the airwaves, what kind of Electro-Magnetic Interference is tolerable from your computer and other things. Many, if not most, of the communications devices that we take for granted would simply not exist.
Everyday that I can turn on my car radio, make a cell phone call. Heck, even connect to the internet and post a message here on Slashdot, is another day that I should thank the FCC and the people that made the FCC possible.
BS about how "Market Forces" and other blah-blah crud would simply be much better than government regulations regarding communications, would have left us with a wasteland of commmunications devices that simply wouldn't be able to communicate.
I have no doubt that without the FCC, we simply would not have the same level of technology that we have today. Most everything with electronic control devices would have trouble operating properly, if they operated at all. There would be little to no chance that we would have been able to see the Moon Landings, let alone even travel to the Moon.
The world would certainly be a different place without the regulation of the airwaves. I have to admit that I am unable to claim being an expert when it comes to radio signals and wireless communications, but from my limited readings, it is very easy to interfere with the radio signals that are in use in most devices. Just remember that the next time you enter a tunnel while on your cell phone.
-.-
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
Remember to always face away from the TV when possible.
This is a good thing. The industry is stuck in old technology and no one wants to move forward. The electronics industries would love to sell new tv's to everyone. The broadcasters don't want to spend money upgrading equipment, sets, and they would also rather fit 5 crappy channels at standard definition than 1 crappy channel in high definition. The general public doesn't want to spend money on HDTV's or even digital TV's because there's not enough content off the air, or any other way. If digital receivers were integrated into the TV then at least broadcaster will know a large number of people (eventually) will be able to receive what they're broadcasting. And the price is really not an issue. When DirecTV first came out, the receiver/satellite kit was around $1000. Now they're around $100 for some models, and as low as $40 (subsidized). If the price starts at $200, the FCC is right in estimating about $16 in a few years.
There are so many advantages to digital TV (not only HDTV) that it really is the smart thing to do. All the industry needs is someone to get them to swallow the initial bitter pill!
The National Association of Broadcasters endorses the purchase of HDTV, wants everyone to have it, but the general public is OK with what they have, and don't want to spend extra money for something they don't want or need. People are generally happy with the options they've had, and can easily make copies of programs on their VCR's and DVD-RW players. The NAB sees this happening, but can't effectively do anything about it because the technology already exists, so the NAB persuades the government to force people to submit to their will.
The RIAA endorses the purchase of music CD's, wants everyone to have it, but the general public is OK with what they already have, and don't want to spend extra money for something they don't want or need. People are generally happy with the options they've had, and can easily make copies of music on their computers. The RIAA sees this happening but can't ffectively do anything about it because the technology already exists, so the RIAA persuades the government to force people to submit to their will.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
Since most countries are now trying to scrap analog television by the next decade, this should be a good thing, but until telewest comes around and install digital tv where I am its boring old analog for me.
At first it was really hard to find something else to do, but after a few months the anxiety gradually eased. Now I'm looking out of the window or, if it is raining outside (I don't like rain), I lie on my bed and stare at the cracks in the ceiling.
I heartily recommend giving away your TV.
Wait until you can't watch your DVDs or Tapes because you haven't paid the rent on them yet.
--Mike--
Oppose Digital Restriction Management (DRM)
If consumers want ditital TV, they'll get it. If they're not adopting it as quickly as the broadcasters and the government would like, the problem is that the price is too high to justify the increase of quality. Its all supply and demand. Once upon a time, not everyone and their 3 yr old kid were talking on cell phones. Now they are. People adapted to that market because the industry found a way to make it happen. If that meant selling the phones for a penny and making up for it on the service, so be it. It was far more effective than forcing a $300 expense up front, which practically nobody was willing to go for.
So if the industry wants Ditital TV in every home in the near future, they're going to have to sell that service so that purchasing analog sets or even keeping the current analog sets doesnt' make sense anymore. This means that new digital TV sets must be LESS expensive than the analog counterparts, not more. If this means the broadcasters will have to partially rebate the costs of the TV sets, so be it. They're the ones who want this so badly, not the manufacturers, not the retaillers, and not the consumers.
If the broadcasters REALLY want this to happen, they just need to announce that they're going to stop transmitted analog signals as of a certain date. The consumers will switch if they really want the service. And if they don't, well, them the breaks. Of course, there will always be straggler broadcasters that will pull the entire market of analog receivers, so this will be a tough trick to pull off without losing tons of market share.
But that's not the government's problem. The government does not need to get involved to mandate a change in industry standards in this way. You can't force the free marketplace. It tends to go where it wants to go. And when it wants digital broadcasting on a large scale, it will have it, and the analog will slowly die away until the point where pulling the plug on it won't make a signficant difference.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
Yes, the Television Evasion Act will criminalize those antisocial elements of society who refuse to conform to MPAA norms of behavior, social interaction, and consumption as demonstrated and dictated by the Television.
Television Evaders threaten the fabric of society by consuming less, and thinking for themselves more. They are a danger, and must be stopped!
I was shopping for a 1080i/480p display recently. I looked at a Sony HDTV set with a tuner built in. Very soon they are putting out a basically equivalent model without the tuner, and it will sell for $500-$700 less. For other brands, HDTV-compatible sets without tuners sets go for $500-$1000 less than the equivalent sets with tuners. I don't know where they get the $200 figure.
The plasma sets are monitors only. If you wnat to tune television -- SDTV or HDTV -- you buy a tuner. Many tube and projection sets come with SDTV tuners but require a separate tuner for HDTV if you want it. The tuner would plug into the TV through the component video inputs -- i.e. a so-called "analog hole".
The government should stay out of decisions that people must spend extra money to have what they neither want nor need.
a public that seems pretty satisfied with traditional analog TVs.
Exactly. So far, there's been nothing on TV that I'm interested in watching that higher definition would help.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
As I said, I get my HDTV signal via Digital Cable. Along with the Digital Cable channels I also get HDTV versions of ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, PBS, HBO, and Show Time. Much easier than OTA and more content than DSS.
I just traded in my normal Digital Cable box for the HD Digital Cable Box... Right now I use the Scientific Atlanta 2000HD, but they just sent me a card saying I can get the 3100HD if I drop mine off.
If nobody really wants digtal TV, then why push it? There's no need to rush. With Tivo undercutting traditional revenue methods, the Internet revolutionizing distribution and ruining distribution control, Wireless and P2P poised to exacerbate the whole situation, and the Spectrum subject to all manners of demand, controversy, and newer more efficient and effective technologies, we might as well wait.
It may take a while to get this mess all sorted out and there's doubtless significant improvements on the way. Maybe traditional commercial-driven networks will collapse. Maybe small-scale production and distribution will really take off with the enablers we're just starting to see. Maybe someone will come up with a generalized wireless system that is so good everyone wants to switch to it. In the long run it'll probably be better to go without for a few years until all the pieces fall in place, than to have ourselves saddled by an ever more complex and restrictive arrangement.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
I can't wait to see the environmental damage this move will create. Think of all the landfills, piled high with analog television sets.
Now the government will force me to watch 150 channels of crappy TV in high definition.
a public that seems pretty satisfied with traditional analog TVs.
If we're satisfied with analog TVs (I am. It is show quality I care about. Picture quality of analog is sufficient.) then why are "we" pushing for digital TV?
("we" refers to the fact that the FCC is part of a government by and for the people so it should be an extension of our wishes)
I'm pretty convinced that the industry will do everything in their power to screw digital television up and over-regulate it and I don't need hassles trying to record from TV so I'll stick with analog TV and a VCR thank you.
Coding Blog
Well put. I had hoped he wouldn't be this much of a door mat but it seems every other day there's a /. submission about this. Seems that most everybody involved in anything remotely tied to tv/radio/internet/etc has decided that legislation by elected representatives (such as they are) is useless. Instead just get the FCC to mandate it. It's faster and cheaper to just buy off the FCC I guess. In any event, it's not like congress is there to backstop any of this foolishness. Sen. Disney, Tauzin and all the other idiots are submitting bills written by industry interests as fast as the lobbyists can write 'em.
(unfortunately I can't take credit for this one. It was written by a fellow slashdotter a while back, and I've lost the attribution. If the author is still out there, let me know and I'll send you a beer ;-) )
For those interested in a brief history of HDTV, here it is:
Here's how it went:
Broadcast Industry asks for bandwidth for HDTV
FCC says "OK, we'll set aside bandwidth for HDTV"
FCC says "What standards?"
Industry says 'No Standards Please' and come up with EIGHTEEN recommended formats for HDTV. I am not shitting you.
FCC says "Isn't 18 different standards a bit much?"
Industry says "Shut the fuck up FCC, we know what we are doing. The 'market' will handle this!"
Consumer Electronics dudes whine "18 formats make every thing cost more, you are fucking us!"
FCC says "OK, it's your call on standards, 18 formats is fine, infact there are NO STANDARDS AT ALL, 'cause we are letting the 'market decide', but you start broadcasting HDTV now or we take back the FREE bandwidth."
Industry says "What? We really just want the free bandwidth. You really want us to do HDTV??
Congress says "Fuck you Industry. Broadcast HDTV or we'll legislate your asses back to Sun-day!"
Industry says "We're fucked. 18 formats? Why the hell did we do that? Let's change it."
Consumer Electronics dudes say "You ain't changing shit. We are already building the boxes you said you wanted built."
FCC says "Yah, ya boneheads we told you 18 was too many, now you gotta live with it."
Industry says "Well FCC, will you at least make the cable companies carry the HDTV at no charge?"
Cable companies say "Fuck you! You gotta pay! Bwah-ha-ha-ha!"
FCC says "Yep, no federal mandated on HDTV must carry, we are letting 'the market' handle that"
Industry says "We are so fucked. We are spending 5-10 million per TV station in hardware alone and have 1000 HDTV viewers per city, even in LA!"
Consumer at home says "Where is my HDTV? Why does it cost so much? Fuck it, I'm sticking with cable/DirecTV."
Consumer electronics dudes, broadcast industry, FCC, and congress all cry. Cable companies laugh and make even bigger profits.
However, my biggest pet peeve with Satellite TV and digital cable is that you have to have a tuner that's separate from your TV. That means that you've lost the ability to watch one show on the TV while recording another on the VCR. It means you have to add yet another remote to your collection. This is the main reason why I stick to basic, analog cable.
Now, if TV's (and VCR's) had digital receivers, and if these receivers worked with satellite and digital cable as well as broadcast HDTV, without the crappy advertisement-laden "channel-selection" interface that the current digital-cable boxes provide, then I might actually want to buy one of these things.
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
Irvu, you just summed up 50+ years of neo-liberalism in a single post. We will continue seeing this happen in all aspects of life, for this is our future--not yet a boot kicking a face forever, not yet...
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
Another words... "Profits are too low here, society isn't interested in a new technology, so we'll force it on them with a law."
Did I miss anything?
I can only take so much of this.
Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but copyright will always protect me.
So if I don't buy into the "everything is disposable" routine and am still using a ten-year old tv in 2006, suddenly I will be treated only to static and a few pirate tv channels being broadcast from teenagers' backyards(until the FCC shuts them down of course).
No. You will buy a $99 (maybe even less) box that sits on top of your TV and decodes the digital signal so that your old TV can display it. Every other form of digital TV does this currently, and in fact I have yet to see TVs with integrated digital cable or satellite decoders. In the UK the government is considering giving them away to the stragglers if digital terrestrial TV hasn't taken off enough by the time the analogue signals are shut off. Perhaps the FCC might do the same if they're desperate for the frequencies. You get more channels and better picture and sound.
In any case, 2006 is only the date when all new TVs must have built-in decoders - it says nothing about the actual shutoff date for analogue transmissions. In the UK that's set for 2010, although that could change by a year or two in either direction depending on adoption rates and how the government plays it, and the UK is a little bit ahead of the US in the adoption curve.
Really, there is an easy way out.
I believe the answer is "the Investor Class".
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
I haven't used the tuner in any of my TVs ever (4 TVs since college). I use the VCR tuner. My 56" TV is just a monitor for my DVD, VCR, and PS2. I plan on keeping it that way.
Why aren't external digital tuners an option?
I am pissed off that there isn't a digital in on my TV, but I'm sure you can buy them that way.
Joe Batt Solid Design
The difference is that closed caption is actually for the good of mankind. Digital receivers don't add enough value and they give Fritz too many chances to regulate what I can watch in my own home.
Coding Blog
All I have seen are the huge 60 million inch projection TVs that have digital receivers. Does anyone make like a 20" or even a 27" digital TV? I think requiring TV makers to include the receiver is the only way we are going to make the move to digital.
I'll never go digital until they stop trying to make me do things I don't want to do. When its as easy as it is now (one line of cable into the house and I can plug a TV into any pre-wired jack in my house and watch), I'll do it. If they insist on getting a seperate fee for decoders on every TV in my house I'll never do it. Digital dishes even sound like a good idea unless you have a house pre-wired for cable. Its all useless in that scenario, you can only watch where you have a decoder and can only record what you watch which defeats the purpose.
Digital is, by definition, imperfect. Analog is the way to go.
What might really attract people would be wide-screen format coupled with HDTV. But have you priced those? You can't even touch a non-HDTV WS TV for less than a couple grand. How many people do you know that can and are willing to just go out an plunk a couple grand down for a TV set? And if you wanna get a good one, one that might actually last for a few years and not have a display constantly plagued by artifacts, you're lookin' at more like 3 grand even before the HDTV tuner.
Now comes the MPAA and friends with their DRM proposals. This makes digital TV even less attractive to me than it was.
Considering the fact that I'm a geek, not adverse to spending the big bucks for higher-end stuff and I have an otherwise complete home theater system: if I'm not anxious, or even willing, to buy right now, what does that say about the likely attitude of the casual TV consumer?
Message to FCC, the TV manufacturers and the content providers: I need a direct-view WS digital TV of about 34" diagonal measurement that's of good quality. I need the confidence that I will not be encumbered in my private recording or playback activities. I will pay no more than about US$1500 for this TV. Then, and only then, will I upgrade.
I've been waiting for about two years for the above. I stopped holding my breath about a year ago.
Sometimes the quality of digital is indeed impressive, but there are other occasions when we switch back to the analog version of the particular station. There are occasional tolerable problems with what I assume are drop-outs/transmission interence which can range from just sections of the image being drawn with low-res blocks to having the entire display disappear.
My main quibbles, however, are with the artefacts, especially in live TV coverage (eg with the current Commonwealth games coverage on the BBC). For example, competitors are often haloed by DCT blocks (i.e. high frequency areas) or while low frequency data (i.e. subtle blended colours like walls or the sky) are often quite banded.
Of course, this could be that the realtime compression hardware simply doesn't have the grunt to cope with the image data that's being thrown at it, but I'm also wondering if the signals are deliberately over bandwidth-limited. I believe that the latter has been the case with some digital radio broadcasts.
Simon
PS: Mind you, for those in the US, digital TV would be leaps and bounds better than the standard NTSC broadcasts
If they were to change the digital standard to allow for additional codecs now, it might take years to hash out the patent licensing. Also, the older the codec, the sooner the patents expire. MPEG2 has been around for a while now. And if they're really taking advantage of new codecs, they'll need to not only add support for them, but also add support for different divisions of the spectrum so as to use the saved bandwidth for something else.
Not to mention those few digital tuners already out there and those chipsets already in development...
While it would be nice to take advantage of all the latest technology, at some point you have to say it's good enough and go with it.
What's the point? For the horrendous crap that's on TV now, a decent analog set and a decent signal are all you need. Everything else is a waste of money.
Sigs are bad for your health.
Doesn't it seem odd to you that TV makers oppose a regulation that basically would require all consumers to buy new equipment over the next five years? If they don't buy a new TV, they will at least need to buy a converter box for their existing one. So why would the TV makers object?
The content providers, broadcasters, and equipment makers are still in a big tug of war about evil consumers recording Lion King in digital quality when it's broadcast on ABC/Disney. Equipment makers don't want to implement the copy protection that the content providers want because consumers won't want those restrictions.
I think they also suspect the govt may still back out of this mandate due to consumer revolt, and if that happens they'll be stuck with product nobody wants because it's more expensive than the old stuff.
I recently bought a DVD player, I want to slowly add new stuff to have a decent home theater.
I had a fairly good price on it at my local Wallmart...
Next, I went at some electronic shop with my wife to check out which TV I could get next.
Well, I was pretty disapointed to see how much a decent TV cost, and because of that, I seriously think I will wait a few years before upgrading it.
A 32 inch Sony Trinitron cost near twice as much as a D-Series of the same size. Why?!?
Yes the technology is recent and it host a lot of cool features, but twice the price tag?!?
It's all based on the hype which surrounds it, and some people will actually buy it.
The problem is that I'm sure it is not within reach of the middle JoeBlow. And I don't eant to buy a standard analog TV cause I already have one.
So I'll stick with what I have until prices drop significantly. Maybe if they are required to includ digital decoder it could help to lower the price, but I don't beleive the manufacturer argument that it is this much more expensive to make.
Today, they benefit from the "cool" factor which help them sell their TVs twive the price.
The day this will become a "normal" feature, they will have to reajust their pricing and is a "bad" thing.
I'd rather be sailing...
I don't like being told I have to do something like this any more than the next person. Having said that, this is probably a good thing.
The FCC has a long history of letting "the market" decide standards, and implementation schedules. The result is the current mess we have, with several competing (and incompatible) PCS phone standards (TDMA, GSM, CDMA), and digital or HD TV taking decades to develope a standard. As much as I hate to say it, if the FCC finally managed to decide to actually dictate something to the market, it may be a good thing.
We don't have HDTV now because the FCC decided to allow the market to set the standard. Since there wasn't a uniform standard, no broadcaster would invest in the equipment needed to broadcast a signal, and no set maker could market their sets without supporting several different "standards".
Sometimes the market needs an appropriately placed foot to get things in motion. This is probably one of those times. The part that shocks me is seeing the FCC take an active step in the process.
12% of people buying HDTVs are buying digital receivers.
The other 88% realize that broadcast TV sucks. Why do you need to see Jennifer Aniston's head four feet across? Will your viewing experience be enhanced if you can see the individual grains of grit on Survivor XXVII?
--
E_NOSIG
Quit watching TV and go out to do something active. There isn't a damn thing on the idiot-box worth watching anyway. Imagine how much healthier you'd be if instead of sitting in front of the TV all day you actually went for a walk. Improve your mental health by reading a book.
Time sinks should be outlawed by the government.
They want digitial tuners in TV's. But they didn't say they wanted HDTV tuners in TV's. At first I thought there wasn't a difference, but now I'm not sure. Couldn't you digitize a NTSC signal as easily as a HDTV signal and pipe it through a digital tuner? Also, what does this have to do with DishNet, DirecTV and all the cable companies? DishNet and DirecTV already use digital signals to broadcast NTSC-quality stuff to US televisions, and cable companies aren't using any of the airwaves (they use cable). Also, cable companies are selling digital cable now to people with NTSC televisions (analog tuners). I don't see the big deal here. So what if broadcasters are forced to send all their stuff in digital. I haven't used an antenna on my TV in over 15 years. Cable and dish companies even force you to keep your TV on channel 3 anyway and use a converter, so why not just use a monitor, or the video/audio-in ports on your TV and bypass ALL tuners?
So what happens to the over-the-air local channels? I know just about everyone has cable/satelite tv these days but what about the poor college student who can't afford anything but free tv? Will he have to settle for getting all his news from Slashdot???
You report, Slashdot decides
Prevueing you're poast ownly hellps iff ewe no how two spel inn teh furst plase
First of all, I get analog cable. It's obvious the cable company gets a digital stream from somewhere, makes a NTSC signal out of it and ships it to me via analog.
All I can say is that I have never seen such a crappy picture. In the 80s, analog TV was at its peak and the picture was gorgeous. No compression artifacts around edges/fast movement, no green squares all over the place when something fucks up. Laserdiscs gave me a great picture and sound. Now DVDs have the same artifacts that I just mentionned, yet people love them. I don't get it. It's very rare to see a DVD properly mastered, so I'm guessing digital TV will be the same mess.
Second, TV's video in bandwidth has gone up a lot. Standard broadcast bandwidth for video is 4MHz. If you go with the s-video inputs, you get a lot more. It's like NTSC has been overclocked for a while, to make TVs accept higher resolution signals. Seems to me most TVs are ready to be hooked up to an external digital box. The only thing that's bad about all TVs and LDs , is the interlace, and that's easy to fix.
I've been waiting for this! I'd have a new HDTV by now if it weren't for the problem of finding one with an integrated digital tuner (and the other problem of add on boxes). Finally a bit of legislation that I agree with! W00!
Been watching HDTV for several months. You're wasting your time by watching in standard definition what is available in high definition. High definition originating from video sources is mediocre but high definition originating from film is spectacular. When you have an HDTV display you essentially have an exact replica of a 35mm print.
Americans are cheap bastards. I know I'm one of them.
:)
We'd all buy a digital TV if it were cheaper. In my apartment with my roommates we had one tv, it was like 13 inches. We don't care about "digital cable" or HDTV because we can't even afford *basic* cable. Plus lots of people are already invested in their giganto projection TVs already.
Rob
P.S. I would be glad to take your gignato projection tv so that you can buy a digital.
How many millions of televisions are purchased in 10 years? Multiply that by $15 and that's the minimum amount of money that will be spent on this. Over a BILLION dollars. Perhaps a few hundred million in chips is a reasonable mandate to help the hearing impared, but a BILLION dollars is alot to mandate so that the FCC can rape the public of spectrum for cash. What do we, as consumers or whatever, need digital broadcast TV for anyway? How does anybody benifit? People who can afford this already pay for cable or sattelite, and people who can't afford cable and sattelite are going to be forced to buy new TVs, or tuner boxes. If they were going to open up that spectum for FREE public use, then I could see some value in this, but they're not going to do that.
One side effect, though may be a large-scale switch to satellite programming. My DTV box decodes from digital input to analog output which is fed to my 10-year-old television set and I get local channels off the satellite, rather than from an antenna. Unless this bill is amended to require that satellite decoder box outputs are digital, all those old TV's will keep working. Now (and here's the unintended consequence), since, as you stated, a DTV setup is many times less expensive than the initial cost for one or more new televisions or digital-to-analog converter boxes, expect to see a huge increase in satellite subscribers. At least for the first several years, a satellite subscription will be substantially less expensive than replacing a television set or buying a settop decoder.
"Don't just do something, stand there!"
I mean, look at recent TV design trends. Flat screens -- who cares if Jennifer Aniston's pregnant belly is somewhat more concave or not? You get used to it either way. Wide screens -- they seemingly can't make 'em nearly cheap enough, because everyone would want one if the price was at all acceptable. HDTV -- who can afford it 0 to watch Monday Night Football?
Meanwhile the sets only get more monstrous, wildly overpriced flat panels aside, and we have warrens of wire running from the TV to the sound system through the special additions we added to our houses for the home theater. The TV's supposed to fit our lives, not the other way around, right?
If you expect these people to have a clear sense of their own interests, even, that's pretty optimistic of you. They can't even come up with a set I want to buy.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
I don't think your logic follows. I've read a few times now that the FCC is relaxing their demand for all (major) networks to broadcast a digital signal by 2006, so while the TV manufacturers will be required to incorporate the digital boxes, the TV broadcasters won't be required to create demand for it ... leaving the manufacturers eating the cost (initially).
... large industries rarely do anything proactively, which is why FCC mandates ever come about. The FCC needs to poke somebody in the arse, because the broadcasters are saying "not enough people can watch digital broadcasts, why should we convert all our equipment?" and the manufacturers are saying "none of our consumers want digital boxes" because the consumers are saying "none of the shows I watch are broadcast in digital, and I don't see the benefit - why should I pay extra for a digital box?" ... the FCC can't regulate consumers and they've already tried to mandate the broadcasters (apparently without success), so that leaves the manufacturers!
Don't get me wrong, I think that this is probably a good thing
C'est l'avie.
Satellite TV makes so much sense, that I think the GOVERNMENT should launch a few, to give "local channels" to everybody in the United States.
This would create an industry of dishes and receivers that will make it profitable for other companies to offer premium services. (They already have multiple LNB dishes that can point to multiple satellite slots (provide they're close) at once.
but why bother ? To see the crap served up on TV twice as clear, it just makes it suck worse,
Rose colored glasses and all. Maybe if any of the networks could rise to the challenge and consistently produce high quality programming I might care
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
It's here: http://www.hothoneys.org
It's all about bandwidth. The FCC regulates the frequencies people are allowed to transmit on. Analog TV frequencies are taking up a huge block of bandwidth that can be used for other emerging wireless technologies. In order to free up that bandwidth, broadcast television stations need to move over to digital broadcasts which use a smaller chunk of frequencies to transmit. Until the broadcasters are switched over they are using both the analog and digital frequencies, which is a waste of this very limited resource.
Once consumers switch over to digital TVs, or at least digital tuners, the FCC can take back the analog TV frequencies. Right now the plan is for this to happen in 2006. TV manufacturers are dragging their feet because they can charge a nice premium on digital TVs right now, and moving them into the mainstream means lower profit margins and lower overall profits for them.
Once digital TVs become mainstream the price to make them will be very small. Consumers get better quality pictures and sound for this small additional cost. They also get access to the new emerging technologies that will be possible because of the frequencies freed up by the analog broadcasts going away. Older TVs will need a digital tuner/converter in order to work.
The government will also reap billions from auctioning off the current analog TV frequencies. Consumers will in turn pay for those billions when they buy the new products. This makes legislators happy because they get to collect billions of dollars without it being obvious that people are being taxed.
I personally think it needs to be done. Those frequencies need to be made available, and unlike much of the legislation, the people who are paying for it, actually get a benefit from it in the form of better quality pictures and sound.
Umm, totally OT... isn't that phrase supposed to be "C'est la vie"?
No matter what they do, they are simply unable to create new frequencies. There are only so many frequencies available.
True enough.
So, they have to limit and control those frequencies, otherwise the next time you turn on your cell phone, you might end up getting nothing but an old "I Love Lucy" show, or end up having to help a Jetliner land at a landing strip 60 miles from your home.
I don't follow you. With or without regulation, nobody would create a device which requires use of a frequency which would not be usable.
Without the government regulating and controlling the airwaves, what kind of Electro-Magnetic Interference is tolerable from your computer and other things. Many, if not most, of the communications devices that we take for granted would simply not exist.
Unless they use too much current, and hence too much power, there is a distinct limit on the electromagnetic interference caused.
Everyday that I can turn on my car radio, make a cell phone call. Heck, even connect to the internet and post a message here on Slashdot, is another day that I should thank the FCC and the people that made the FCC possible.
And who, pray tell, is that? The ignorant masses who believe that external control is necessary?
BS about how "Market Forces" and other blah-blah crud would simply be much better than government regulations regarding communications, would have left us with a wasteland of commmunications devices that simply wouldn't be able to communicate.
This statement is complete BS. "Market forces" would not allow "communications devices that simply wouldn't be able to communicate", since nobody would buy such a thing.
The world would certainly be a different place without the regulation of the airwaves.
Of course, because then the airwaves would be accessible to average people on their own terms, and not controlled by an ever-decreasing number of corporate and government interests. Who knows, we might even have a true free press!
I have to admit that I am unable to claim being an expert when it comes to radio signals and wireless communications, but from my limited readings, it is very easy to interfere with the radio signals that are in use in most devices.
Yes, it is easy to interfere with radio signals. The question is, why would you? And, if you are someone who would, would simple regulations stop you?
barbarian, n.: someone who feels entitled to everything. See also government
...This would just be another reason. I'm not going to go out and buy a set or a converter.
Sigh.
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
Anyone who has ever been in a busy bar and wants to catch something on TV knows closed captioning is a great feature for more than just hearing impared people. More recently, as the father of a brand new baby girl, I've found it very useful when either she's crying and I'm trying to rock her to sleep or I want to watch something and don't want to wake her up.
steve snyder
Vote Quimby.
We go to my chum's house for all our wrestling pay per views. He has digital cable and what I like to consider is the world's finest tube TV, SONY's 40 inch XBR. It's huge and does good interpolation and comb filtering to make your LQ broadcasts look HQ.
We have come to realise, in every high motion scene, how much digital sucks. Words on screen have no bandwidth to display sharply, flying bodies are turned into blocky messes and gradual swaths of colour are graduated in the ugliest fashion. Blacks aren't black.
Furthermore, the interruption of the signal for any reason means clicking audio and ugly block breaks. We've missed a lot of important, not to be repeated events and phrases due to these breaks. In an analog signal, a break results in a picture that is still visible, sound which may be obscured by fuzz but which is audible, because you don't have to wait for the next "frame" to begin before you can start viewing. And this is over a cable line...digital broadcast signals will only mean a still worse situation.
Every time we miss something, or catch an ugly jagged edge, or have what should be a crisp beautiful colour destroyed by the "high bandwidth" compression, we just turn to my big-TV friend, who pays more for cable every month than I do on my school payments, and say "Dude, digital sucks." He agrees.
(Yes, we are those lamos who order these stupid things -- we're five skilled college grads who like wrestling, f*ck off)
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Without regulation the competitor to your cell phone company could block the signal.
Sucks to be you.
It is entirly unfortunate that it is necessary to restrict Radio frequencies. It isn't how ever some evil plot.
Don't bother upgrading your television. There's nothing worth watching anyway. Instead, do something better: take up mountain biking, have more sex, go for a walk, join a bowling team, whatever.
Well, maybe not the bowling team, but the others are good.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Yes and by that "logic" Thomas Paines the "Rights" of Man is also part of DRM. And a course on Time "Management" completes the trio.
Digital TV != DRM, does it mean that DRM is possible, yes but it requires the complicity of the HW and TV operators. But to say that Digital TV is "part" of DRM indicates that you haven't realised what Digital TV is. The BBC broadcast a bunch of "free to air" Digital TV stations, and soon there will be more after their deal with SkyTV. There is Digital TV all over Europe right now and people are recording it onto their Videos just like they always have done.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Of course, this could be that the realtime compression hardware simply doesn't have the grunt to cope with the image data that's being thrown at it, but I'm also wondering if the signals are deliberately over bandwidth-limited. I believe that the latter has been the case with some digital radio broadcasts."
Actually I was seeing a very low quality picture here in Canada on the 18" satellite dish watching footage from the Commonwealth games. It was very blurry and grainy. Everything was hard to make out. Since the digital TV vs. Satellite are totally different broadcast methods, perhaps the problem is, as you said, with the recording equipment and not the broadcast system.
Unless I am sorely mistaken. All electronic devices that can produce EMI, must be approved at some Class-level by the FCC. Without that approval, I believe that those devices are unable to be legally sold within the borders of the United States.
Also, the FCC has many mandates that control what frequencies a device is able to operate within. They did mandate that all Remote Control units for RC cars be altered to a lower frequency a few years back. In fact, if you are caught running an Radio Controlled toy with one of those older sets, you are fined quite severly.
I believe that those old sets affect Cell phone signals or something very similar to that.
Also, without those mandates, people with pacemakers would probably have to be kept in radio signal proof boxes since the endless interference that is cheaper to allow to exist, would exist.
-.-
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
About 1963 or 1964 the FCC required that all television sets sold in the U.S. be able to receive all UHF as well as VHF channels. There were a few UHF stations already on the air. UHF had a tough time prior the FCC requirment, I remeber some people where down right nasty about the policy much like digital television today. All in all I think think turned out for the best.
Will the digital drivel be more interesting and compelling than the analog drivel I'm watching now?
I can hardly wait.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Don't you mean "I rove Engrish?"
Oh well... I guess that's the way the cookie bounces.
Here in the UK we have both satellite digital and "terrestrial broadcast" digital, the latter being digital that you can receive through an ordinary antenna with a set-top box on your plain old analogue TV. The terrestrial broadcast network, ITV Digital, tried to squeeze 48 channels into the available bandwidth, and the result was famously shite quality.
It wasn't even the tolerable sort of poor quality that you get on analogue: fuzz, crackle, etc. Instead, it's blocks of non-motion on your screen, or even the entire screen freezing up, while the video buffer struggles to refill.
Just what you want when you're watching a crucial sports match.
No thank you.
ITV Digital have recently gone bust, and a consortium including the BBC and Murdoch have stepped in to take it over. They are planning to reduce the channel count to 24, and to introduce other improvements in the transmitter network, so maybe the quality will improve. But they are no longer asking people to pay a monthly subscription: it will be for free-to-air channels only. Seems sensible to me: why pay for what we can already get it for free?
I also expected that my new digital cordless phone's quality would be better than my old analogue cordless. No, just like the digital TV, the intereference is no longer crackle-and-fuzz, it's random cut-outs when I get more than 20 yards from the base station. A friend of mine has had similar problems with his new digital cordless in the US.
So I don't expect that TV reception quality will improve simply because "It's digital!" You can implement bad quality transmission in any medium.
Here is a thought...
If the Federal Government wants to force me to upgrade my Television to Digital, does that mean I can go out and purchase a $10,000 Plasma HDTV and write it off as a Tax Deductable expense? That would certainly be cool.
doing mandating market acceptance of a new product or technology anyways ? Our government is certifiable. They've accepted the corporate rational that they have a right to the money in our pocket, and if they aren't getting it, then somthing must be wrong and the government should pass some laws ensuring the continued flow of cash from our pockets to theirs.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Perhaps I was being too harsh - sometimes the live sports quality was excellent (for example in the velodrome) but often the athletics broadcast wasn't. Given that both are "fast paced" activities, I really don't understand the variation in quality.
Simon
Chinese lottery, anyone?
the pun is mightier than the sword
With the manufacturing of parts, if I wanted to make a piece that was non-standard for my own uses. That wouldn't affect anyone else's manufacturing process. It would cause someone else's piece of equipment to fail simply by existing, unless it was used as a replacement part within that equipment.
However, if I was able to create my own radio, using whatever frequency that I wanted to use. Then I would be able to interfere with and potentially cause grave harm to many people. Think of pacemakers, many of those have tiny recievers and transmitters for being checked at the doctor's office. Without knowing it, I might end up causing those devices to race out of control, or stop altogether.
Thus, the need for a regulatory body that has true Federally backed protections for the citizens. There exists no ANSI or ISO police that could come after me if I made a screw that was non-standard. If they did, I would laugh at them and tell them to go away. Of course, you can't do that to the FCC, they will just beat you down with the FBI and take you to prison. Thus, most people listen to what they say, which is a VERY good thing.
-.-
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
Is it just me, or does the whole concept of "broadcast" in the traditional RF 50kW sense seem like an outdated sledgehammer?
I mean, with the advent of cheap microprocessors, it seems like a low-power, cellular approach to putting video signals where you want them shows a lot more finesse.
The only reason I can figure for overwhelming market areas with such strong signals is so that 0.1% of the population in outlying areas can see I Love Lucy. That, and being able to tell advertisers that you easily can reach a million households once you purchased the right to a loud bullhorn.
It seems better to relay the signal to little cellular wireless access points and not to fry the airspace with such strong signals. That would make it possible for me to watch TV from Hong Kong if I choose to do so.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
I love a digital picture, especially when watching a movie. But one thing I've noticed with my Comcast digital box is that traditional channel surfing is painfully slow. Each channel seems to need a sync-up time lasting from a split second to a full second or two. This is especially annoying when I catch a glimpse of something interesting just as I'm changing channels, like a plane crash video or a blouse coming off. By the time I can switch back to the prior channel, I may have missed all the action.
My quesiton is this: will broadcast digital tv be like this? If so, I may rather stick to DVD for digital movies.
Evil is the money of root.
AT&T and other carriers still on TDMA can switch over to the newest CDMA gear which has a much higher capacity. CDMA has it's own problems and it's perfect, but to use the argument the reason for the poor service is lack of airwave is a total lie. Well to me anyway. There are viable long term solutions to the current "percieved" shortage of airwave bandwidth. I can't help but think the telco's just want to buy up bandwidth from the FCC so that they own it. After all, if the big boys owns all the bandwidth, how can a small guy use new technology to break into the market.
So the FCC won't let me be
Or let me be me so let me see
You take a week's break and look what happens. :-)
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
OK I did not look very extensively at the games, mainly because I work/commute long hours and have little time, but the footage I saw of the main on-foot marathon was very poor quality. As to the vélodrome, I don't know about the picture quality because I didn't see it.
If televisions don't fit the bill, and there is a need, then alternatives will be found. Maybe the broadcasters aren't jumping on this bandwagon because it's not worth jumping on.
The broadcasters will do anything to give themselves a competitive advantage. Obviously high definition TV isn't giving an advantage at all. Sure they say the reason it isn't advantageous is because most people don't have high def capable TVs. Why is that? Is there a standard for these hi-def tuners yet? There are probably 16 standards, which is exactly as bad as none at all.
I don't buy that argument that the tuners are too expensive. $200 is cheap. So what if there aren't many hi-def broadcasts, if hi-def is what you want you'll buy a tuner. I bought my dvd player pretty early in the game, and I can guarantee you I paid more than $200 for it. And there were like 6 movies available. But it was cool, and I shucked out the cash. I still use that same dvd player too.
The problem with hi-def is that it just isn't that great of an improvement. It isn't worth all the ass-clowning required to make it happen, so it doesn't, and it shouldn't. Except now the Big Gov is coming in to force it happen. Once the Big Gov starts taking control of something, they never ever relinquish that control. It's like a cancer, and if you don't fight it diligently, it will get wildly out of control. So now we are going to be stuck with a bunch of lame ass broadcasters pumping out hi-def, and when someone invents the better/cheaper/cooler solution, none of the broadcasters are going to jump on that because they have too much frickin cash layed into their crappy hi-def broadcasts.
We might get new broadcast startups if the cost of entry were reduced, except now the cost of entry is increased because you've got to have this craptacular high-def technology.
The $200 extra per TV seems a bit steep.
Here in the UK you can get a set-top terrestrial digital receiver for £99 with no subscription charges. That gives us a rough idea of production costs, but compare similarly-featured analogue TVs to digital TVs and there's a couple of hundred quid difference.
It seems that the cost of "going digital" is being kept artificially high by TV manufacturers.
On a similar subject, the UK government wants to switch off analogue broadcasts by 2010. Many people think this is unrealistic because digital take-up has been slow and TV manufacturers aren't doing anything to help, especially with regard to low-income homes. You can get a decent-sized analogue TV for less than £200 but you're looking at almost three times as much to get a basic digital set.
I'm sorry I was under the impression that consumer technology should be driven by economics. Can you say Free Market? I new you could.
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels.
Your second-hand American set bought at a low-low price will be useless within a decade as the analog broadcasts will stop.
When will people actually research the things before making such broad assumptions?
I think _all_ or nearly all set-top HD recievers sold in the US can recieve digital transmission and convert them to most common analog signalling formats. You can buy recievers and converters that will decode digital broadcasts to composite, s-video, component and HD component formats.I would think that European sets would do similar.
In short, YOU CAN USE YOUR EXISTING SET. Just buy that set-top box. It might not show as much detail but you would hopefully be getting benefits from digital transmissions.
I wonder if these mandated digital receivers will include the Gemstar guide software. When I got digital cable, I was given a Motorola receiver and it uses this monstrosity. It is excruciatingly slow, and it is plastered with ads. Why should I have to look at ads that take up half the screen When I want to view the program guide? Not to mention that it's ugly and hard to use.
The motorola receiver is junk too. I have managed to lock it up and get it into a loop where it turns itself on and off. And it's so slow. If the rest of the gemstar guide such a peice of crap, I would blame the slowness just on the receiver.
Anybody else have experience with this crap?
Suprisingly, the Time Warner Cable outfit in the Orlando area actually provides very high quality service...
> Many digital (480i format) channels such as multiple Showtime, HBO, Discovery, etc. channels
> All local HDTV (1080i format) television stations via cable
> On Demand Video, not just pay per view (iControl)
However, there could be some improvements...
1. Force all customers that use channels above 13 to use the new digital setop boxes
2. Get rid of all the older, grainy analog channels that are chewing up bandwidth. There is no excuse to still have to deal with analog channels on cable. The noise (even though it's a good signal) really shows on an HDTV set.
3. Provide a flat rate for the settop boxes, just like some of the satellite customers. This would entice people to upgrade.
4. Work with FCC to integrate the boxes into the TVs and work on standards.
They're not mandating that every TV has an HDTV tuner on board. They are mandating that every TV has a digital tuner. This would mean that you don't need to use that external box for your digital cable any more.
Had the FCC not required manufacturers to put the tuners that we use today, we'd still be using those old cable boxes. I'm sure that most of you have seen one of those clunky things before.
I know that it's the "in thing" to get all up in arms when "The Man" does anything at all, but show some common sense.
Seriously... look at the facts.
The HDTV stuff has all the consumers confused. Digital cable, DirecTV, digital receiver, HDTV receiver... hey, guess what, they're not really related in any way. I just bought an NTSC TV, because I know whatever comes out next can be adapted to it.
Add on top of that, the studios are apparently objecting to us watching their shows at different times by using PVRs. They want to kill them dead in their tracks.
THEN it gets decided that ads should run DURING the shows, in a little square in the bottom corner.
The end result? We, the consumers, shell out more money, are forced to watch shows when the networks decide that we should, and then are forced to watch MORE advertising. The entire TV industry appears to be going to pot. I think I'd rather pay $40/mo for a gym membership than cable, and I'd feel better in the end.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
Drop the cable, she'll get over it. Seriously.
I don't have cable, digital or otherwise. For movies I have my Netflix subscription, and I get the major networks with a cheap antenna I got from Radio Shack. That should tide anyone over once they adjust, no?
YMMV, but we get enough channels to find something half-way decent on most of the time, I get Fox for the Simpsons and can see quite a few locally televised Red Sox games. (Go Sox!) :^P Dropped cable a long time ago as I was sick of their high rates and horrid customer service and really haven't looked back.
When I watch TV... I don't want to think... just watch. The quality of my current cable is perfectly fine, and all I can see digital giving me is more useless abilities, like the ability to buy products I see on the screen in a soap, or sitcom.
PEOPLE ARE LAZY! FOCUS TECHNOLOGY AROUND THAT!
** Curb Your Enthusiam **
to expensive to die.
I work for a PBS affiliate, and we just bit the bullet last year and bought the new transmitter and other bits to broadcast digital. I believe it cost us $800,000 plus reoccurring expenses. Our electricity bill per month can be several thousand dollars. And we still have 5 transmitters left to convert in my state. Once most stations convert to digital, the only thing they can afford to do is take their analog signal and convert it to digital. It looks horrible, but it's cheap. All the pretty demos you see at Best Buy are meant to make you buy the TV. It will be a long time before most stations can/will actually make content to look like that.
As far as my opinion as a consumer, it's WAY to expensive. I just bought a new TV several years ago because I could not wait any longer for a relatively inexpensive digital TV. Yes, new TVs will be probably can contain a digital receiver, but I don't like it. Most of the television engineers I talk with recommend you buy the TV and the receiver separately. Ypu know in a few years receivers will be better, with great new features they say you can't live without. The TV is not going to get much better, but receivers will.
And for those of you who don't want to buy a new TV just to get a digital signal(myself included), most of the receivers I have seen will transcode the signal for your current analog TV. That's what I going to do anyway.
If I could pass laws for no-other-reason-than making more money for me, I would do it too.
Thanks Mr. Big Gubm'nt! Could you please donate me a new mule too, when this one kicks over?
Fack the gubm'nt.
All hail discordia
consumers want digital tv, but there aren't that many displays in "consumer" grade sizes. Samsung makes a 27" 4:3 display, and thats about it as far as i know for 27" and under displays which can display HD.
not everyone wants or can afford a 36"+ display. For some people its just impractal. Most people aren't videophiles, but just want to watch their sports, news and sit-coms.
I believe once you see more 13", 19", 25" and 27" HD capable displays at a reasonable pricepoint (say $50 more than an SD tv) sales will take off.
The other alternative is to offer HD exsclusive (sporting events?) content or some other added value(such as digital subchannels for NBC, CBS ETC) which are available OTA. Then consumers would have more incentive to upgrade.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Dear China,
We in the US know that you are tired of receiving our worn out (yet often still useful) technology waste. We have a new option for you. Because of mandates put forth by the Federal Committee for Corporations, commonly refered to as the FCC, we will be shipping you, instead of computer components, TELEVISIONS! You see, our old ones will no longer work and we will be forced to buy new ones, so we want to now ship all of our old tv sets to China. You can use them in the base of that new dam you are constructing.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Screwed over Americans.
----- LoboSoft specializes in Digital Language Lab
the problem is bandwidth. the bandwidth of an HD signal could easily fit several SD signals (hence the idea of subchannels at lesser quality). an HD signal may be 18-27mbits, versus 6mbs for a standard definition signal.
the digital cable and DBS systems generally use digitally compressed analog streams. Some use regular MPEG2 streams as well
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Or consumers are too smart to buy digital when no one knows what control I.P. moguls will insist on.
Naw... too simple.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
The government...is between a rock and a hard place, with sales of HDTVs slower than expected,
Slow Sales? Well what do they expect! What's the salary of the average tv watcher (4 hours a day of viewing) and what part of that is disposable income? Now what part of this disposable income do you think they will have to spend on a tv that right now will not really even make their watching experience moderately more enjoyable??? Come on. And now they want to increase this cost? The only way they're going to move these things at the pace they want is if the price drops dramatically or they start giving them away to people.
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
Yes and according to federal timetables, the metric system was completely instituted in American life for the last 15 years.
I used to wonder what was so holy about a silent night, now I have a child.
There's an obvious and easy workaround. Produce analogue tuners that you can plug into a multi-frequency analogue monitor, and voila. Sell them separately.
Stick Men
And that is the markets answer.
We dont want it in its current state.
Your arguement implies that HDTV is good so the market needs to be pushed to accept it. And that push is good, because the market hasnt accepted what the market SHOULD be accepting.
That is not the way it works. You make a product, you have an idea, no one wants it? Tough. Go make something people DO want.
The companies that have made investements through flawed hdtv outlooks should suffer. There is no "right" to make a profit. Profit comes because the market (the buying public) determine that your idea/product has some value, and they GRACE you with the profits by buying your idea/product. Not because the Federal government says, "Buying public, you WILL by this product if you want TV, even though the system we have now delivers the quality you desire at this point in time."
----- LoboSoft specializes in Digital Language Lab
Come on people: let's make an effort to stem the flow of misquoted idioms. The phrase is "champing at the bit", meaning a horse who is so eager to get going that it's biting the steel part of the bridle which is in its mouth. "Jumping at the bit" doesn't make sense.
Andrew P Edant
Somehow the concept of effective system policy seems appropriate. Sure, laws passed by Congress aren't supposed to supercede the Constitution, but they have the effect of doing so until someone gets a court case ot overturn it. Of course, both the Constitution and laws passed by Congress are only as effective as there are people to carry them out, and as they haven't been educating us in the public schools as to the ramifications of either set of "system policies"... Those in law enforcement tend to follow the least restrictive set they can get away with... So guess what the "effective system policy" is going to be. Unconstitutional.
So the goverment wants us all to switch to digital TV. How nice. Wonder if these people are going to help fund the changeovers for PBS stations? Its bad enough that PBS stations have to get public funds to help support them because the government won't help enough. Is this the end of children's educational TV programming? Who is going to pay for new HDTVs or converters for all of the schools who use PBS programming as part of their teaching curriculum? Oh that's right I forgot - cartoons from Nick and Cartoon Network have FAR more value than PBS programming, plus they make members of the NAB money!!! So much for educational programming.
So why doens't the industry just stop producing televisions and produce "Analog Video Signal Viewing Appliances" :)
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Could be, could be ... my french isn't great :)
Charming. Haven't tried it in years, but still want to make a comment. Linux is user friendly...it's just picky about it's friends...
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
5. Are airbags required? Yes. As of the 1999 model year, the federal government required automakers to install driver and passenger airbags for frontal protection in all cars, light trucks, and vans.
And before that they were required for drivers for I believe 2 years. Besides the insurance industry basically required it since 1996, they jacked the hell out of the rates for any new car that lacked an airbag as it was basically seen as coming from a manufacturer that intentionally cutting corners on safety.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
I just got digital cable up here as the cable co. finally made the set-top box free and gave away 60 days of free programming of the 50 digital channels. There is almost nothing on them but reruns. Reruns of dramas, game shows, sports. Until we have an increase in production and writing talenet and imagination I don't know what we're going to put on all those extra channels. There are a few kids channels that seem worthwhile for my son but I can't see many others I'd want after they are no longer free. I can send the signal to my TV using the composite video cable or an S-video cable but the quality increase is something only a true videophile would notice. I honestly don't think regular digital television is worth anything. HDTV is worthwhile but almost nothing is made in that format and even there, the novelty will probably wear off after a while. The media may be the message but does the resolution really matter that much?
$#!^ happens, but why does it always have to happen to me???
impaired
a lot
benefit
satellite
This is a great question! I would have pegged you as a TV junkie, what with the many spelling mistakes and borderline ramble of your post.
(I know, I know ... -1, Flamebait)
Rich
I guess the majority of the people in this country just arent videophiles. Why do I need South Park brodcast at 1024x768 resolution. I dont care if I can see that big zit on Leno's nose. What is the value added to higher resolution? Do I need to see the indivual brain bits dripping off of the walls when Arnold shoots the bad guy? How about a higher quality of writing instead of a higher quality of video.
So, in 4 years, a huge, federally mandated bonepile of "old" analog TVs will be created. Lately, there's been lots of concern about TVs and monitors in the landfills due to heavy metals and other environmental ills associated with their disposal. Then, there's the sheer volume of junk which would be created by this government fiat.
Where are the environmentalists? Why aren't they raising hell about this?
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
Yeah yeah, I know my spelling is horrible, and usually ispell is my friend, but I don't have the time today to worry about it. What does TV have to do with spelling? I'm proof positive that you can not watch TV, and still be a bad speller. :)
The only things I can remember how to spell with any reliability are the function names in the kernel and libc. I stare at a CRT all day, but not the one you think I do!
Another misused horse phrase is "free rein". You can drop the reins on the horse's neck and let the horse wander around freely and graze. It's a signal to the horse that they get to decide where to go. Working cowhands do this when things are slow, and Western bridles (hackamores or bosals) are designed to allow it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, I thought going digital tv is not the same as high definition tv. Seems like everyone is confusing HDTV with DTV and assuming we're going to pay $2000 for our next TV. Digital TV refers to the method of broadcast right? Requiring a different receiver vs. analog. HDTV is basically increasing the resolution, requiring a slug of different equipment in the box that allows display of that format. I've understood that you will be able to purchase a digital receiver and plug that into your old analog box, whereas HDTV will require a whole new box.
Am I wrong here?
Hecubas
The digital cable systems are just compressing the hell out of your regular old NTSC tv signal, primarily to reduce the amount of bandwidth taken by a tv signal on the cable. I have seen digital cable; it sucks.
I have also seen digital TV, which is very good, and digital HDTV, which is awesome.
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
My 27 inch TV (Daewoo) only cost me 200 bucks. Now the FCC wants to DOUBLE it's price?? This whole HDTV debacle is really beginning to piss me off...and I was General Manager/Chief Engineer of a small UHF TV station until 1999!
I've said it before, and I'll say it again..the only people who WANT digital TV are the TV manufacturers and Congress. The manufacturers want it so they can force sell us two thousand dollar TV's instead of letting me choose a $200.00 one..and Congress is having a hard on over all the $$ they're getting by selling off THE PUBLIC'S RF spectrum to the highest bidder.
Frankly, the public largely sees HDTV as a rich person's toy. Besides...TV viewership is DOWN...so the answer is to make them pay big bucks for a new TV? I don't think so....
As for me, I'd much rather spend my $$ on a more powerful computer with a 21 inch monitor and a DVD R/W...and keep my 200 buck Daewoo for the 10 hours a week I (still) watch Television.
It's not clear why this should cost $200. The radio part of a cell phone costs about $10 in quantity, and that's a very good digital radio tranceiver. On top of that, you need something comparable to a midrange graphics card to do the decoding. The total ought to come to under $100 in early versions, then decline from there.
I don't watch TV anyway. It is a waste of my time. Now if you don't mind, I will continue reading Slashdot...
Lets first have the gov tell us how we should watch tv then what to watch then we could have them tell us how much to eat, drink, and smoke too.
Screw it. I'm moving to Russia, mabye China.
Capitalism: unequal distribution of wealth
Socialism: equal distribution of poverty
What is so different about the FCC mandating Digital recievers and them mandating a change in Remote Control toy frequencies?
Both were MANDATED to provide extra "air-space" for another piece of technology. What logic are you using to deduce a difference?
-.-
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
I have a perfectly good 19" TV. I think it cost about $150. And it fits quite well in my small living room.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
I think that they are waiting for the standards to settle with regards to connecting settop boxes to the TV and the prices to fall.
The government will also reap billions from auctioning off the current analog TV frequencies. Consumers will in turn pay for those billions when they buy the new products. This makes legislators happy because they get to collect billions of dollars without it being obvious that people are being taxed.
But when they piss off millions of grannies[1] with old sets and no money to buy a new one or upgrade, the Vote Monster may bite back.
[1] Or unemployed techies
Table-ized A.I.
On a related note, perhaps the broadcast spectrum should be put under new management.
Maybe this would be tolerable, if 100% of TVs in use, were only used to receive over-the-air broadcasts.
But they aren't. TVs are also used to receive cable signals, and cable TV is outside the scope of FCC's excuse for existing, since it's not using the airwaves. TVs are also used to receive signals from other electronics (e.g. stuck on channel 3, getting a signal from a VCR, some kid's Nintendo's RF modulator, etc.), and these uses are outside the FCC's excuse for existing.
Fuck you, FCC. You have no right to do this. If you want the reassign part of the spectrum, then limit yourself to going after people who broadcast on it. Receivers are none of your business.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
In reference to your sig:
Have you ever surfed the web through a ssh connection using Lynx? It is pretty interesting...
Why is that particularly interesting? I've used Lynx, but I haven't done the above. ???
Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
I hope this flies you know why?
Then you slashdot winies can't wack off to bad pron and not find interesting news other than ms is the shite.
I was just wondering if the fully digital TV will be able to allow an analog signal. I would think that during the inital switch over from analog to digital not all stations in the local area would go over at the same time. For example I live in an area w/ 3 peasent vision stations. If two were to switch over by 2003 and the other from maybe economic reasons planned for a 2005 swichover I would think that there would be less viewers for the analog => less revenue to advertisers => less advertisers willing to use the analog services.
a public that seems pretty satisfied with traditional analog TVs
I am far from satisfied. TV is so 20th century. I have no use for it. A computer is comparitive in cost and can do so much more, and has a much better resolution. Sell me a 40" computer monitor, not a 40" TV.
Making TV digital? Come on! Computers are already there!
HDTV? Give me a break! Just an oversized computer monitor with the wrong video jacks.
My computer sound goes from my sound card and into my receiver, just as though it were a TV. Plus I have surround sound 3Dfx in video games (I can actually hear which direction the screams are coming from).
Downgrade to a TV? Are you nuts? I'm surprised people still buy those ancient pieces of junk.
I got a lot of stuff from my grandfather because he was moving and had stuff where he was moving, and I was moving and had nothing. Unfortunately I am now burdened with a TV. I will need to worry about where I am going to keep it. Living room? No, that's where the PC entertainment center is. Bedroom? Nope, that's for the PC workstation. Basement? Nope, that's for the server. I will need to keep it in storage just in case a use comes up for it.
TodayTM BillyJoelTM GoogleTMd for StitchTMes due to WindowsTM while RollerbladeTMing with an AppleTM and a PopsicleTM
I have TimeWarner digital cable, and it's the same problem. I don't know whether they allocate bandwidth based on a channel's popularity, but the big networks (NBC, ABC, etc.) all come across fine, the Sci-Fi channel and specialized movie channels are just a little blocky (especially in any scene with fog, smoke, or sand), and digital-only channels (i.e. can only receive them if you subscribe to digital cable) such as Style and BBC America frequently go all blocky or crap out altogether.
I called TWC last night about BBC America breaking up and all the customer service rep would say was "That's a network problem."
Your fantasies contain the seeds of important concepts.
My argument implies that the market will never change unless someone makes it. "The Market" will do whatever is easiest, or makes the most monitary sense today. The market almost never looks ahead, just look at the stock market on any given day to see how short term their view of things is (think single digit minutes).
I am not arguing for the profits of the companies involved. I am arguing that I want better quality than a 1947 TV signal with a little chromatic aberration thrown in, and acknowledging that, in this particular case, the only way to get a change is for the FCC to mandate it. That it may also benefit some TV manufacturers is incidental. I just want something that does the job, which today's 1947 technology doesn't accomplish, and see no other solution that is going to deliver it.
At some point we need to junk the old TV technology, and get something better in it's place. When do you think we should do it? How do we get broadcasters, TV set manufacturers, and comsumers, to sit down at the table and buy the cost? Do you think we should have both systems forever, and really make those companies pay even more money to broadcast forever in multiple systems.
My comments about HDTV were not obviously not understood. My point was that because the FCC never selected a standard to HDTV, it essentially died due to neglect. We have no HDTV, because the market could never agree about it. Each company wanted us to use their standard, and no one said (this is the FCC's job) what the standard for the US was going to be. They delegated their job to the marketplace, which never reached a consensus. The FCC seems intent on actually doing something for a change, like setting a standard (as it should do), which it has seldom afforded much effort to in the past.
ITV Digital going bust had more to do with the fact that its parent companies, Carlton and Granada (the two largest regional terrestrial TV broadcasters) decided to renege on their £315 million (~US$475 million) football (the type that's played with the foot rather than the type that's played with the hand ) rights contract than any technical issue.
Basically, they overspent on the live rights of domestic football's lower divisions (minor rather than major league baseball is a rough analogy) and were somehow amazed when the viewers didn't sign up in droves. After the footballing authorities refused ITV Digital's greatly reduced "take-it-or-leave-it" offer, Carlton and Granada took the easy out and let ITV Digital go into liquidation rather than bite the bullet and honour their contracts.
Currently, the Football League and its clubs are fighting a legal battle to get the money they are owed from these parent companies.
Bottom line: ITV Digital collapsed because some suits wanted to rid themselves of a less than profitable contract that they and clubs both signed in good faith.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
I just bought the Pace DVB Box for 99 pounds and I'm pretty impressed. In a month or so we'll have 24 free to air channels (15 at the moment) - all coming from a roof top arial. The quality is fine in my reception area (NW London) and the interactive stuff is cool.
As for channel line up, well if you want football and movies you're out of luck. But if (like me) you're into documentaries, current affairs, news, arts and music the choice is great.
At the moment the commonwealth games are being broadcasted over 10 days with interactive stuff like 2 extra video streams, updated medal table and context-sensitive extras.
All in all I think I got a good deal for the one off cost.
how about we put somthing a bit more pressing, and useful, as a requirement out there first....say, RCA jacks. i have no idea now many TV's i've had to hook up for friends, friends of the family, and cousins, because their tv only had coax in the back, and their playstation/xbox/whatever only had RCA. let's start selling some useful tv's here, walmart. ugh.
moox. for a new generation.
The manufacturers are *NOT* dragging their feet. MPAA & friends threaten to not release movies to any broadcast digital media until they are convinced the broadcast is not copyable, or at least they can control copyability. ... surely there are more expensive parts in the 'puter ...
Manufacturers are anxious to get the DRM standards set so they can sell something that won't be obsoleted tomorrow. They make little markup on current TVs and selling all of us new ones makes them excited.
The tuners are much more complex than current analog tuners, which are even today one of the most costly components of the TV. The other is the tube, and hi-res tubes are expensive to build. This technology is mature so volume can only reduce the cost so much.
No one has explained how I can get a computer with a 21" 1280x1024 monitor for less than an HDTV of comparable monitor size, though
Except it probably would have been cheaper on all of us for the government to give CC boxes to the few hearing impared and save the rest of us the trouble of having to buy it.
Sleep is for the Weak
As long as they are separate components, it'd just be a device that gets in the way of being able to use your entertainment system the way you wanted to when you first bought it.
Now if you're talking about _integrating_ them into televisions, that's a whole different ball game, but I somehow doubt that they're going to start giving away large-screen TV's with these devices embedded directly into them.
As was already pointed out elsewhere, the public is quite happy with analog television -- there would have to be a benefit that is far more real to people than just better pictures and more channels.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Have you guys ever watched what's on TV? Just
what makes you think I would pay a cent more to
see the same crap in HD/Digital?
Yes, there is the odd good show, movies, and
such, but most of the good stuff is on premium
channels...guess what? They're on cable, not
broadcast TV. So, why should I invest in a
premium over-the-air receiver? The content
just isn't there. And no, I don't want to see
the same commercials in high definition.
But the MPAA doan't want me to have one. As a result, my widescreen TV will be showing DVDs and TiVo content. Stuff that is already broadcast in letter box looks excellent.
:^(
My only problem is I can't get my Buffy DVDs to show up decently on the widescreen TV. Everything is stretched horizontally.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
This is about putting digital TUNERS in ordinary Wal-mart style TV sets. Since ordinary TV sets are just display devices, recordability isn't an issue. Find me a cheap mass-marketed consumer TV with video OUTPUT ports.
Thanks.
Yah, the bastards will keep trying, and they will take away our freedoms as harshly as any third-world dictator to do so. As Bush likes to say; "The price of freedom is Eternal Vigilance" he just doesn't think to apply it to american companies.
Irvu.
I'm surprised that noone has mentioned the "last mile" problem with junking analog tv/radio signals. Many homes are in rural areas and only pick up 2-4 local TV stations with their set of bunny ears. If wireless analog TV broadcasts are chucked, then where will these people be? No mention has been made of sending digital TV signals through the air, where anyone could recieve them for free (heaven forbid), so these people can't even use set top converters. All other things that stand in the way of last-mile broadband adoption will be here too, though the consumers will be losing a service they didn't have to pay for in the first place, so there is little likelihood that they will foot the bill for digital cable wiring.
...but until Tivo et al can do it, there's no point as nothing I want to watch is on when I can (or want to) watch it. And any omniscient being will know that I can't stand to watch live TV any more anyhow.
I thought you meant "... if it wasn't for my wife [who is the ONLY entertainment on TV] then [you would've cut the cable] bla bla.."
;[
And I was going to ask what show she was on...
Too bad for you
What was the name of that electronic-compents store that used to be everywhere until the government mandated 20 chanells in CB radios? They went bankrupt nearly over night when they could no longer sell their warehouses full of radios.
Government mandation of technology is crap, utter crap. Government declaration of hackers as terrorists, thereby detracting attention and effort away from preventing real terrorism. It's crap, utter crap. Our governments' reaction may not have ended as many innocent lives as those of terrorsts, but its long-term effects are much more severe.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
"Our federal government's 15-year industrial policy to make sure the conversion to HDTV is complete by 2006 looks more like an impending train wreck with each passing month."
"What went wrong? A lot of things are to blame but ultimately it comes down to a federal industrial policy that substitutes bureaucratic mandates for the wisdom of markets and the desires of consumers."
"There are no easy escape routes from this industrial policy mess. Perhaps the best solution would be to cut our losses and allow the broadcasters to keep what they've got, and more importantly, to sell it as they wish. This option would be difficult for some to swallow because the broadcasters would be getting away with murder. But it would achieve the important goal of freeing the spectrum they're hoarding by encouraging them to sell it through private auctions to those who value it more highly. And it would get the feds out of the business of micro-managing the television industry."
"Congress should have auctioned off this spectrum back in the mid-1990s and let the chips fall where they may. HDTV would probably have emerged, but through other means (satellite or cable), and other wireless providers would have snatched up the spectrum at auction and put it to better use. As it stands now, we're left with the mother of all industrial policies, and few pretty TV pictures to show for it." (more...)
First of all the amount of bandwidth allocated to a channel is the same for all channels. I don't remember exactly how much each gets but is more than enough, and all are the same. Also why did you call them and ask about BBC America when your cable TV is f#$@ed up??? You are odd.
To fix you TV problems do this. Make sure you know what your problem is. It is called "Blocking and Tileing" And in the digital cable realm all problems show up as Blocking and Tileing, no matter what the actuall problem is with the signal. This is different than analog cable where different problems look different on the screen. Call TW and tell them you have Blocking and Tileing. And/or check all your cables, do you have chitty radio shack cables with crimp on connectors, throw those out. All cables should be 60% braid or better, and connecters should be pre-made or pressure fit connectors(NOT CRIMP ON) Next all your splitters should be 5-1000Mhz(many don't go up to 1ghz) Next tighten all your connections, very tight by hand, and all those not on TV/VCR/CABLE BOX/etc should be tightend with a 7/16 wrench turn 1/4 turn past tight by hand.
If you are unable to fix it yourself call TW they will be able to fix it, if the blocking and tileing won't go away talk to a supervisor, its NOT acceptable.
LinuxWorx
Spelling errors are intentional as are gramatical error
I work at a public broadcasting station in Nebraska. We are required to have all of our transmitters upgraded to digital signals by a certain date. Till that time, we work in stages. In stage one, we have to have our digital transmitters on 25% of the time. Next stage, 50%, then 75%, and then 100% simulcast. There we are broadcasting in both analog and digital.
As for disconnecting the analog signal, there is a rule saying when we can. Only when 75% or more of the viewers in our tranmission area are capable of recieving the digital signal can we shut down the analog transmitters.
Right now from meetings I have been at, the analog costs would be the same as digital (except for the initial equipment purchases). While we are doing simulcast, costs would be double for maintenance and electricity since both transmissions have to be online. Also, we will be eating up more satellite bandwidth. When the digital conversion is done, costs for broadcasters will go back down.
It is that middle ground that will cost, and the equipment purchases. On a side, public broadcasters get an extra year or so to convert, while private (like CBS, etc) have to convert before then.
The entire broadcast band, TV and radio, occupies about 500 MHz of a 300 GHz spectrum allotment.
you have it all backwards.
"If this means the broadcasters will have to partially rebate the costs of the TV sets, so be it. They're the ones who want this so badly, not the manufacturers, not the retaillers, and not the consumers."
ITS NOT THE BROADCASTERS OR CONSUMERS WHO WANT IT!!!
Which is the root of the whole problem. Both parties would be happy to keep sucking up large amounts of the spectrum. Yeah, there is some benefit to the consumer and the broadcaster once everyone has adopted digital TV, but the main beneficiary is anyone who gets to use the newly freed up spectrum.
Thats why adoption is so slow, obvious costs but (largely) hidden benefits.
Your wife/girlfriend/mother/self esteem won't let you out the the bars huh?
Prices for Digital TVs should be comming down as soon as Apex releases their Digital Televisions. They were the ones that created the ever popular DVD/MP3/VCD/SVCD Player at well under $100. They haven't been making the best quality equipment, but at the prices they are likely to be pushing (most likely under $800) they will drive down the prices of most other HDTV monitors.
Since the Apex DVD Players hit the market, there has been a huge influx of Sub-$100 DVD/MP3/VCD/SVCD players...among them Magnavox and Hitachi...Even most high-end players now have the MP3/VCD/SVCD capabilities.
They have already released some very nice Flat Screen TVs at very cheap prices. Apex has only been around for ~3 years, and just Recently got into the TV market, but it looks like they are stiring things up.
When the government required all televisions sold in the states to have a UHF receiver, this same stupid argument went on. In the end, all tvs have them and we are not any worse off.
-Dan
My only concern with digitalbroadcasts is that it gives incredible powers to the content broadcasters and creators over my ability to
a) tape/record it
b) see it at all!
But what's even worse, it will make almost impossible to have multiregion DVD players.So no more US/Canadian DVDs on my TV, then (I live in Europe). That would -really- suck.
Sigged!
> The government will also reap billions from auctioning off the current analog TV frequencies.
Gee, maybe the Government could actually do something in the public interest, for a change.
Take all those billions and hand out free set top DTV->NTSC converters.
Oh, wait, I'm sorry. Momentary insanity, never mind. Most things "Government" does that to me.
> Analog television turn-off is mandated by the FCC in the US for December 31, 2006.
- Worst for industry
- analog TV shuts down
- people stay away from digital TV in droves
- major networks go tits-up
- Best for people
- analog TV shuts down
- people stay away from digital TV in droves
- major networks go tits-up
Now about all those rose-coloured-glasses predictions about how much telecoms companies are going to shell out for 3G licences... yeah sure.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
The bandwidth will improve (instead of 6 channels sharing 24Mbps, it will be 4 channels sharing 18Mbps in the Autumn). The transmitter power will also effectively increase, due to a switch from 64QAM to 16QAM (less data transmitted, but much more resiliant).
Don't forget the promise of digital control crap. People *want* VCR's. People want to avoid having digital control crap in their TV; they're not used to it.
However, the MPAA is really thirsty to put it in. For example, look at the rate of uptake of 'digital cable'.. If it didn't have that control crap, we'd have digital-cable-ready TV's and VCR's by now and we'd all use it. But it does, and thats why nobody uses it.
This whole digital receiver thing is stupid. It's just another way manufacturers can use the fact that the american consumer is a sheep.
It would be one thing if it was cheaper to build a tv with digital receiver, but it's not. Why should I have to fork out an extra $200 for a boob-tube just to have one with a digital receiver. Is it that much better? Hell no!
The difference between b&w and a color tv is one thing, but come on, like anyone can really tell if the 40 year old Bugs and Daffy cartoons my kids watch are digital or not.
The real reason is so that the broadcasters can have 500 channels of crap for us to watch. I've got a digital receiver from my cable company. I watch about 12 or 13 channels and the rest I've removed from the +/- channel list so I don't have to surf over 500 channels when I want to watch something.
The orginal intent of analog to digital was great.
The FCC wanted to Use the digital signal to effectivly use the bandwith available.
Now comes the broadcasters. We want features, we want to be able to add to what is being broadcast, semi-interactive functions, we want no copy bits, we want, we want. So the standard has been changed to meet the needs of the broadcaster.
I dont know about you, Low def quality programming on high def TV's are still junk.
Now TV broadcasters want to be able to multiplex multi tv programming over there signal. Have the ability to provide a "subscriber" based service over broadcast tv.
I dont know about you, but until the HDTV is the same price as I paid for my 19" tv Ill never buy one.
Yeah, and the box with the 10GHz AMD you'll be buying around then will cost $7K, right?
Here's your clue, and I won't even shove it in with a cluebat.
Guess what. Moore's Law applies to the electronics in TV sets as well, other than the circuitry (HV power supply, etc.) feeding the CRT, which will hopefully be obsolete by then. TV chip sets or more likely, single chips will be cheaper for OEMs than they are now. Set-top boxes... the box itself, a chip, about 4 square inches of PCB, maybe, and a handful of jacks... the first generation might cost as much as $100, after which the price will probably drop to the $25 level within a couple of years. (using 2002 dollars and assuming the price is comparable to that of consumer devices of comparable complexity now)
As for what gets done with the freed spectrum, lots of possibilities. How would you like the chance to buy wireless broadband at a reasonable price? You like the current situation? How many wireless broadband channels can you get where you live right now?
Tech Public Policy stuff